<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (10) TMI 701 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457714</link>
    <description>Delayed realisation of export proceeds under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was examined against the exporter&#039;s efforts to recover payment. The materials showed ultimate receipt of the proceeds during the adjudication proceedings, repeated reminders to overseas buyers, correspondence with the authorised dealer, and attempts to obtain extension of time. On those facts, the exporter&#039;s conduct was treated as consistent with reasonable and prudent efforts, and the delay was not regarded as wilful default or lack of due diligence. The resulting finding of contravention under section 18(2) and section 18(3) was therefore unsustainable, and the penalty was liable to be set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2024 16:42:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770685" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 701 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457714</link>
      <description>Delayed realisation of export proceeds under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was examined against the exporter&#039;s efforts to recover payment. The materials showed ultimate receipt of the proceeds during the adjudication proceedings, repeated reminders to overseas buyers, correspondence with the authorised dealer, and attempts to obtain extension of time. On those facts, the exporter&#039;s conduct was treated as consistent with reasonable and prudent efforts, and the delay was not regarded as wilful default or lack of due diligence. The resulting finding of contravention under section 18(2) and section 18(3) was therefore unsustainable, and the penalty was liable to be set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457714</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>